608 So. 2d 1129 - McGee v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
33 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently July 2014 · most notably 725 So. 2d 836 - Bell v. State (1998), 646 So. 2d 1275 - State v. Magnusen (1994)
33 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Barker v. Wingo · 512 So. 2d 868 - Williamson v. State · 535 So. 2d 1371 - Vickery v. State · 583 So. 2d 165 - Adams v. State · 574 So. 2d 1314 - Flores v. State
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The refusal of a timely requested and correctly phrased jury instruction on a genuine issue of material fact is proper, only if the trial courtand this Court on appealcan say, taking the evidence in the light most favorable to the party requesting the instruction, and considering all reasonable favorable inferences which may be drawn from the evidence in favor of the requesting party, that no hypothetical, reasonable jury could find the facts in accordance with the theory of the requested instruction.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“The Court instructs the jury that the testimony of a witness or witnesses may be discredited or impeached by showing that on a prior occasion they have made a statement which is now inconsistent with or contradictory to their testimony in this case. In order to have this effect, the inconsistent or contradictory prior statement must involve matter which is material to the issues in this case. The prior statement of the witness or witnesses can be considered by you only for the purpose of determining the weight or believability that you give to the testimony of the witness or witnesses that made them. You may not consider the prior statement as proving the guilt or innocence of the defendant.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Ellis v. State · Bolden v. State“If the State can so demonstrate, then the trial court's denial of McGee's motion to dismiss may be proper since docket congestion can constitute `good cause' for delay.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.